How can flexible racquets be powerful?

I'm a bit interested in the BLX Blade Team or the Donnay Pro One Oversize Extended. Both of these racquets are much more powerful than my current stick, the Rebel 95 (2009). However, the BLX has a flex in the mid to low 50s. How is it that a soft racquet can be that powerful? I understand swingweight and headsize make a difference, but the swingweight of the blx is pretty low too. Is it just the bigger head? Is it beam width?

It's all those attributes. The larger head means longer mains. Inherit power can also come from thicker beams, stiffness, balance, swing weight, static weight, etc. Either a combination of certain aspects or all of them combined.

For my money, nothing beats a healthy static weight. Even if the swing weight is low, the beam is thin, the head is smaller and the flex, low; if the static weight is up there, likely chances are I'll be happy.

From my own experience (science aside), flexy racquets have a more «trampoline effect» than stiffer racquets. But stiffer racquets throw a «heavier ball». I prefer the latter because I feel I have better control.

Flexible racquets absorb the centrifugal force, as opposed to transferring this force. Therefore less force is transferred to the ball with flexy frames, than with stiffer frames.

If you take two racquets with the same:
static weight
swing weight
head size
string pattern

Yet one has a stiffness of 57 (flexible) and the other has a stiffness of 70 (stiff). Swing them at the exact same speed and trajectory at a tennis ball, and you'll find that stiffer of the two racquets will generate a higher velocity ball. This is because more of the force is transferred to the ball.

So whenever you buy flexible racquets, just know that you have to work harder to generate pace. You can combat that by increasing the swing weight. I don't know what the formula is, if you were to take the above experiment and increase the swing weight of the flexible racquet in order to generate the same amount of pace as the stiffer frame. But I'm sure that formula exists somewhere.

Flight Path and Depth Vs Power: We don't often take radar guns to our matches, so it's important to note first... that as players we have got some fairly wacky ways to estimate racquet power. Mostly we have no freaking idea about ball velocity, (MPH) and we are inferring about racquet power from depth, or height over the net. Those are things we do notice very well and pretty accurately. But both of these things are highly sensitive to string tension, string pattern, and string type. Open patterns, or slippery co-poly string will create a higher arc over the net given the same stroke. If the player compensates for this, by closing the racquet face, the result will be more spin. If the player does not compensate for this, the ball will land deeper in the court, not because it is traveling faster, but simply because it has a higher arc. Conversely, a tighter pattern, or sticky string will create a lower trajectory over the net. A player could easily perceive this as low power, because it is landing shorter in the court, or simply not clearing the net. Your rebel 95 has a fairly dense pattern in a fairly small head. Pair that with your sticky nylon string like X One Bi phase, which has the highest COF (string on string friction) of any string tested, and you have got the makings of a very low flight path compared to just about any other racquet. The more open patterns of the Blade team, (18x19, 104sq) and Donnay Pro One (16x19,105sq), is probably what creating a higher arc over the net... this is probably what you are interpreting as more power.

Having said all of that....A few important concepts:

1. Racquet stiffness has little or no effect on power when you hit the sweet spot ( Sweetspot = Center Of Percussion plus the Vibration Node) or just below (Best Bounce).

2. Stiff racquets offer more power for impacts in the top 10-15% of the hoop. Every racquet ever made has a dead spot, right near the tip of the frame. There is a spot, generally located right around the 1st, 2nd, 3rd cross strings down, where the ball just does not want to bounce at all. Complete dudsville. Stiffer frames flex less, so they offer incrementally more power at the very top of the hoop.

3. While stiff frames flex less, and offer fractionally more power in the dead zone right at the tip, you should put this into the context of a real tennis swing. In a volley motion, the tip of the racquet is moving pretty slowly, and nearly as fast as the handle. However, in a serving motion the tip of the frame is moving quite a bit faster than the center of the strings. For a med SW racquet with an ACOR of 1.40, the center of the strings is moving at about 72 MPH, and the tip is moving about 100 mph, on a 100 mph serve. What this means is that dead spot deficiency on a serve gets a big fat boost of juice from the racquet tip speed. That's why you can mishit near the tip on a serve and still get a pretty good result. However, if you mishit near the tip on a volley, or blocking back a 100 mph serve, the result is often that the ball hits the bottom of the net. What this also means is that the speed of the serve is almost directly related to the speed of the tip of the frame. If you want to hit your serve 1 mph faster, the best way to do that is to swing the racquet 1 mph faster.

4. The speed of the tip of the frame, plus the high sw of wood frames helps explain the following event. In 1997, in a comparative test done by Tennis magazine, [1] Mark Philippoussis, the six-foot-five, 217-pound Australian renowned for his powerful serve, averaged 124 mph when serving with his own composite racket. With a classic wooden racket, (where the stiffness ratings average in the low 30's, and a 72 sq inch head) he averaged 122 mph. Racquet power is a mostly a matter of swing speed and swingweight. Scud is able to hit nearly his top speed with a flexy racquet in the 30s, and a 72 inch head, because the swingweights of most of the woodies is north of 360, and he can stil swing it pretty fast. The other factors matter slightly, but only in terms of fractions of MPHs.

Just to help illustrate my earlier points about stiff frames and inherent power:

1. The HEAD Radical Pro has 1% less power at the very tip, compared to the Aeropro, because it is more flexible. But it's basically a wash everywhere else.

2. The Donnay Pro One actually has more power at the tip, pretty even if not a bit higher everywhere else, even though it is more flexible, lower swingweight, and has a smaller head. It has no business pulling these numbers, but it does. It should show less rebound power near the tip, and slight less overall but it has more somehow. Perhaps it's the solid core construction.

3. And the massive 377 SW Boris Becker 11 Special Edition is listed there just in case anybody had any doubts about SW making the largest contribution to racquet power.

4. Bit of history here. Before we started firing real balls at real racquets, the brightest minds in all of tennis physics came up with a formula to estimate racquet power. They assigned a value to stiffness, swing weight, flex, and length, assigned a power number, then these digits were published at the United States Racquet Stringers Association database. From looking at that list, you'd conclude that stiffness is a very big deal. For a very long time, that educated guess was the best we had. In the link below you can see how (in 2005) I answered questions about racquet power using some of those estimates.http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=79904

5. However, when we started firing real balls at real racquets and measuring rebound velocity, the results were shocking, and the old estimate formulas were thrown out the window pretty quickly. Here is a quote from Rod Cross speaking directly of that moment of astonishment I'm describing: Quote: " Figure 2 shows RP (Rebound Power) vs. swingweight for all racquets. The result is simply amazing. Instead of having the 268 dots scattered all over the place, the dots line up perfectly along four different curved lines. The four curves correspond to different racquet lengths. All racquets of the same length lie on the same curve, with short racquets having a bigger RP than long racquets. The result in Figure 2 shows that any two racquets of the same length and the same swingweight will have exactly the same RP, regardless of their weights and regardless of their balance points. The inbuilt power of a racquet in the middle of the strings therefore depends only on the length and swingweight of the racquet, and on nothing else." -- Rod Cross, Raw Racquet Power, Link [2]

Translation : What Mr. Cross is saying there, is that if stiffness played a huge factor in racquet power, what you would see is a gradual rise in power as SW increases, but that the gradual rise would look more like a stock market chart, with peaks and valleys punctuating the power levels btwn stiff frames, and flexible frames. But the results don't look anything like that. The results show a nearly perfect relationship, a perfectly smooth arc because nothing else really matters near the center of the frame.

Nutshell: From this perspective, it's not so much a matter of making a gut wrenchingly difficult choice between Power vs Comfort, with a huge sacrifice at either end. It is more a matter of finding a racquet that feels good to hit with, within a specific swingweight/power range that suits your game. If you tend to swing slow and smooth, and that's your groove, then a higher SW frame might suit your style, and you'd get max power without incurring more unforced errors by swinging out of your comfort zone. You will get added stability on off center hits as an added bennie. If you want to swing faster, a lower sw frame will frame will help you do this. A faster swings speed might make for an increase in unforced errors, but you will get additional spin out of the trade off.

All I can say is "wow".
Thanks so much for all the info Jack.
Based on what you've stated I will be staying with the lower flex racquets simply because I like the feel, and in the knowledge that it's not really going to effect my power levels at all, unless I hit near the tip of the frame, which unfortunately I do from time to time
Thanks again.

Wow, flexible rackets force the player to swing out on every ball, so he learns he can do it on every ball, does it, and the ball goes fast.
Very stiff rackets might have more "theoritical" power, but if the player constantly hits "out" all the time, he learns to reign IN his power, so when he plays, the ball stays IN, and he doesn't swing as fast, so he creates about the same power, but less consistently.
Wow.

Ashley - I tend to add on a little more info every time I answer the same question, after a few years I become a little long winded, as I'm always learning from other folks here too. I think I might need an editor soon LOL.

Lee - Your reply seems to indicate that flexible racquets "force players to swing out" to compensate for lack of power. That's not the case, nor is it my point.

Wow, flexible rackets force the player to swing out on every ball, so he learns he can do it on every ball, does it, and the ball goes fast.
Very stiff rackets might have more "theoritical" power, but if the player constantly hits "out" all the time, he learns to reign IN his power, so when he plays, the ball stays IN, and he doesn't swing as fast, so he creates about the same power, but less consistently.
Wow.

Click to expand...

LeeD, I suggest you read Jack's post again. If you understand it properly, you'll come to realise your words above embarrass you. If you don't understand the words, take a look at the picture. Pay particular attention to the power levels of A and D, which vary a lot in stiffness, but not so much in swing weight. Which one is the more powerful racquet? If you still don't understand, take a look at A and B, which are nearly identical swingweights but vary a lot in stiffness. Aside from the tip and base of the racquet, which Jack explained, which one is the more powerful racquet? If you still don't understand.........well that wouldn't surprise me.

As per usual, you see only one way, black or white.
But what is more powerful?
Are you isolating the racket characteristics from the PLAYER's kinetics?
CAN they be judged separately, or does one actually become linked with the other?
Say a baseball batter look for pure power for hitting home runs. Can he just look for a heavier bat? For more power? Or can he use a lighter bat, choke up on it, and still get the power?
What do you think? I know BarryBonds uses the lightest bat of all the homerun hitters, and get's his power from bat speed, not bat kinetic energy.
So there may be more than one way to look at the power equation.

As per usual, you see only one way, black or white.
But what is more powerful?
Are you isolating the racket characteristics from the PLAYER's kinetics?
CAN they be judged separately, or does one actually become linked with the other?
Say a baseball batter look for pure power for hitting home runs. Can he just look for a heavier bat? For more power? Or can he use a lighter bat, choke up on it, and still get the power?
What do you think? I know BarryBonds uses the lightest bat of all the homerun hitters, and get's his power from bat speed, not bat kinetic energy.
So there may be more than one way to look at the power equation.

Click to expand...

And what would be the best way, in your opinion? I don't see any problems with Jacks information. He's talking about keeping extraneous variables (such as your "PLAYER'S kinetics", lol) consistent, and then measuring the impact of flexibility when these are kept equal. This is, after all, what I was asking.

I will admit to a huge personal bias here. Not a big fan of stiff racquets. My brief stint with the 2012 PD last summer left me with my first ever case of TE after 30+ years on the court. But I will do my best to answer the question squarely. If you want to generate more ball velocity, you have two choices. You can swing faster, and a lighter racquet will help you do this, or you can swing a heavier racquet the same speed. (velocity = mass times acceleration)

Light Racquet, Fast Swing: Swinging the racquet faster has an added bennie in that you will gain additional spin out of the bargain. However, if you are swinging so fast that you pop out of your comfort zone and start making errors because you are swinging wildly that is not good. The other problem is that when making a racquet very light, it becomes unstable. One way to counter this instability in the lower swingweights is to make it a bit stiffer. Take a popular low sw frame like the 2012 PD for example. I can't think of any frame that is more stable at such a low SW of 308. If you compare the PD to something like the Donnay Gold 99, which has a super thin 16/18/18 mm beam, it will give you a bit more juice at very the top of the hoop for 10 less sw units. It's kind of a wash everywhere else. You could look at this like "free power" since the PD is easier to swing at 308 vs 318. However, if you compare a 2012 PD to a really thoughtfully engineered frame like the Becker Delta Core London, or the 105 Red, You'll find that those racquets have similar power everywhere except for the very tip, for the price of just 3 more SW digits. So the question becomes, is that little bit of "free power", a good trade for reduced arm comfort? For me, not in a million years. For somebody else, maybe yes. Is the PD worthy of the "Rocket Launcher" moniker? Nope, not in the slightest. It's complete myth. Not a "Rocket Launcher" by any measurable, comparable means. Some free power, but not much.

Heavier Racquet, More Flex, Same Swing: you wont need to swing quite as fast, which means that you might be able to control the racquet a bit more and reduce unforced errors. Your big bennie out of the bargain will be added stability on off center hits, which you will experience as a bigger sweet spot, and additional arm comfort. A reduced swing speed will not do any favors to spin production, but high sw also implies more dwell time which is spin friendly.

My last image showed four very different flexes and swingweights. The one below hints at the incremental advantage gained with a stiff racquet, when the SW are very similar.

And what would be the best way, in your opinion? I don't see any problems with Jacks information. He's talking about keeping extraneous variables (such as your "PLAYER'S kinetics", lol) consistent, and then measuring the impact of flexibility when these are kept equal. This is, after all, what I was asking.

Click to expand...

H Ashley -

Yes, well said. When a player is talking about racquet power, what he usually has in mind is the inherent power of one racquet compared to another, which is completely separate and distinct from whatever skill level or technique the player brings to it. It's not that players don't matter. Skill matters a great deal. It's just that to understand racquet power, you have got to understand the fundamental building blocks of ball to racquet impacts first.

I'm currently using a 2012 PD. The feel is that is one of the most powerful rackets I've ever used, but the fact is that when I want to hit a baseline winner it's easier with my flexy volkl powerbridge 10mid than with the 2012PD.

I will admit to a huge personal bias here. Not a big fan of stiff racquets. My brief stint with the 2012 PD last summer left me with my first ever case of TE after 30+ years on the court. But I will do my best to answer the question squarely. If you want to generate more ball velocity, you have two choices. You can swing faster, and a lighter racquet will help you do this, or you can swing a heavier racquet the same speed. (velocity = mass times acceleration)

Light Racquet, Fast Swing: Swinging the racquet faster has an added bennie in that you will gain additional spin out of the bargain. However, if you are swinging so fast that you pop out of your comfort zone and start making errors because you are swinging wildly that is not good. The other problem is that when making a racquet very light, it becomes unstable. One way to counter this instability in the lower swingweights is to make it a bit stiffer. Take a popular low sw frame like the 2012 PD for example. I can't think of any frame that is more stable at such a low SW of 308. If you compare the PD to something like the Donnay Gold 99, which has a super thin 16/18/18 mm beam, it will give you a bit more juice at very the top of the hoop for 10 less sw units. It's kind of a wash everywhere else. You could look at this like "free power" since the PD is easier to swing at 308 vs 318. However, if you compare a 2012 PD to a really thoughtfully engineered frame like the Becker Delta Core London, or the 105 Red, You'll find that those racquets have similar power everywhere except for the very tip, for the price of just 3 more SW digits. So the question becomes, is that little bit of "free power", a good trade for reduced arm comfort? For me, not in a million years. For somebody else, maybe yes. Is the PD worthy of the "Rocket Launcher" moniker? Nope, not in the slightest. It's complete myth. Not a "Rocket Launcher" by any measurable, comparable means. Some free power, but not much.

Heavier Racquet, More Flex, Same Swing: you wont need to swing quite as fast, which means that you might be able to control the racquet a bit more and reduce unforced errors. Your big bennie out of the bargain will be added stability on off center hits, which you will experience as a bigger sweet spot, and additional arm comfort. A reduced swing speed will not do any favors to spin production, but high sw also implies more dwell time which is spin friendly.

My last image showed four very different flexes and swingweights. The one below hints at the incremental advantage gained with a stiff racquet, when the SW are very similar.

-Jack

Click to expand...

This is good stuff. It looks like the stiff racquet gives a slight boost at the top and bottom of the frame and that's pretty much it in terms of really significant differences.

You can also see how much more forgiving the oversize Prince is near the frame at 3 & 9, not really that much, but it gives you more than the stiffer frame.

5. However, when we started firing real balls at real racquets and measuring rebound velocity, the results were shocking, and the old estimate formulas were thrown out the window pretty quickly. Here is a quote from Rod Cross speaking directly of that moment of astonishment I'm describing: Quote: " Figure 2 shows RP (Rebound Power) vs. swingweight for all racquets. The result is simply amazing. Instead of having the 268 dots scattered all over the place, the dots line up perfectly along four different curved lines. The four curves correspond to different racquet lengths. All racquets of the same length lie on the same curve, with short racquets having a bigger RP than long racquets. The result in Figure 2 shows that any two racquets of the same length and the same swingweight will have exactly the same RP, regardless of their weights and regardless of their balance points. The inbuilt power of a racquet in the middle of the strings therefore depends only on the length and swingweight of the racquet, and on nothing else." -- Rod Cross, Raw Racquet Power, Link [2]
Jack

Click to expand...

So, from the link, the advantage of plus(longer) racket is only for the serve when you hit it near the tip . You get less rebound power than shorter racket. Is this a right statement?

Say I have a Head IG Radical MP and a Babo APD side by side. For a play test, I swing both racquets at the exact same swing speeds. Why would more shots stay in with the APD than with the Rad MP? If I swing the Rad MP slower, more shots stay in with it. But I have to consciously swing it more slowly. With the APD, i don't have to worry, if I swing fast or slow, the shots stay in.

I'm sure your answer is somewhere in your responses, but for some reason it's just not "coming together" in my mind. Can you help me a bit? Thank you

Say I have a Head IG Radical MP and a Babo APD side by side. For a play test, I swing both racquets at the exact same swing speeds. Why would more shots stay in with the APD than with the Rad MP? If I swing the Rad MP slower, more shots stay in with it. But I have to consciously swing it more slowly. With the APD, i don't have to worry, if I swing fast or slow, the shots stay in.

I'm sure your answer is somewhere in your responses, but for some reason it's just not "coming together" in my mind. Can you help me a bit? Thank you

Click to expand...

Completely different string patterns, so it could just be the topspin of the APD keeps the shots in.

And here, we come right back to the PLAYER preference and his specific needs for his physiology, no matter what you would like to think otherwise.
My best illustration. PREDATOR. Do you think any of the other guys besides Jesse and Arnold could have carried a minigun?
Would Jessie be happy toting a MP-5 in 9mm?
Wouldn't the Indian guy be better served with a bow and a spear?
Back to specific tennis, whilch is easier for you to understand....
Say....BIG SHOW. What racket would you give him? A 10oz fly swatter or maybe a 14 oz real man's racket?\
How about ...,PeeWeeHerman? Would you arm him with a 14 oz flexi flyer, or would you give him a 9.6 oz stiff modern racket?
YOU CANNOT isolate the specifics of the player out of this equation!!!

So, from the link, the advantage of plus(longer) racket is only for the serve when you hit it near the tip . You get less rebound power than shorter racket. Is this a right statement?

Click to expand...

Hi Mongting -

Yeah, that's kind of confusing. I had to re-read that section 3 times the first time I read it for it to sink in properly. Here is the key quote about racquet length and rebound power.

Quote:"There is a simple reason that long racquets have a smaller RP. In order for a long racquet to have the same swingweight as a short racquet, weight has to move out of the head and relocated closer to the handle. Since RP is determined mainly by weight in the head, a long racquet must therefore have a smaller RP than a short racquet (at any given swingweight)."

Racquet A: has a sw of 320, and is 27 inches.
Racquet B: has a sw of 320, and is 28 inches.
Then Racquet B must have less mass in the head of the frame.

Remember that sw is measured by clamping the racquet into the the RDC machine at 10 cm (about 4 inches up on the grip) and is rotated around that axis. So a 28 inch frame gets a boost in sw not from more mass in the head, but from the length of the frame. If you took a 27 inch frame with a 320 sw, and added another inch to it by sliding the buttcap down, you'd increase the swingweight dramatically (about 10 units for every 1/4 inch or so) with the end result of a racquet in the 360 range. So to get that back down to 320, you'd have to shift a bunch of mass out of the head, and back into the handle. That's why it's not uncommon to see extended length frames with balances of -16 points.

Bottom Line: If two racquets are identical sw, and one is longer, the longer frame usually has less mass in the business end of the stick.

Another lesson gone over your head........
In 1970, I enlisted in the Army, for an 8 year enlistement. This one is true.
I was 5'10", about 125 lbs. The Army thought I was the PERFECT size for their needs in what I enlisted for. NOT to carry a SAW, not to be the grenadier, NOT to hump the ammo, but perfect for grunt and pointman.
One of my buds was 5'9" and 225lbs. They didn't plan on him at point or carry a M-16, they envisioned a humper, carrying the SAW or mortar, or even the radio.
Different jobs for different body builds.

I was wondering if you might like to take a stab at answering Anubis's question. To somebody even mildy curious about the basic building blocks of ball-racquet collisions and racquet power (entirely separate from player skill) It wouldn't be hard to piece together. The clues are right there in my posts for anybody to see. For somebody who understands the fundamentals of racquet power intimately, a plausible answer is apparent immediately. All of your comments seem to indicate you find little value in separating the player from the racquet for 11 seconds to contemplate inherent racquet power. I think these concepts I've been discussing can be useful for figuring out on court scenarios such as the one Anubis is currently pondering.

Anubis's question could have many valid answers.
From preference, to grip size, to string tension and kind, balls used, air temps, style of swing, and a host of other factors.
We suspect Babs is barely stiffer, bigger beamed, so the ball should impart the strings quicker.
But does that equate to more topspin? And that is not always a set answer.
Some players prefer a stiffer racket. Some prefer a softer racket. We know this.
Have we seen Anubis hit? And can a vid really show something that a COACH might need several lessons to figure out? And we never claimed to be coach's.

Assume the grip size, string type and tension, style of swing and air temp are all the same. Furthermore, assume that I have no preference to either racquet, but if I develop arm issues later on, i will have to deep six my stiffer frames.

As to my level, I'm a middling 3.0 player who has been coached. I win 50% of my matches.

If you rated yourself 4.0, it would help the analysis.
As a 3.0 rating (I'm sure you're better), your strokes would be too inconsistent to judge, and by your wording "assume", we deduce they are NOT the same, and that you are now talking theory in a real world enviorment.
Go fly an F-23. Can you tell the designers what is wrong and what is right?

Thanks. So if i was using an IG Rad Pro in place of the MP, then perhaps I could swing just as fast and still keep it in play?

Click to expand...

Maybe. But the Bab also has the woofer grommets which allow strings to move move more freely and could be producing more spin as well.

But I think the Rad pro would perform closer.

Also, 2 16X19 patterns might not have the same density of string in the hitting area, and can perform differently. I've played multiple 16X19 racquets and they all perform differently in spin production.

I tend to side with the scientist when it comes to things like spin production and power potential of racquets.

"Feel" is something else that you can't measure, but in the case of feel, racquet specs and other peoples reviews can be of help or completely useless, it all depends. So, get past the feel aspect and acknowledge we're all different, and embrace some real analysis. It won't hurt you. If you want to ignore it all and go purely on your instincts, that's your choice.

Scientists can never rule the world because their judgement is always, at best questionable. They see the world as black or white, right or wrong.
So how can they make decisions on human interactions? They can't.
My g/f is a scientist, working for YOU.
You cannot isolate the human equation out of the question.

ChicagoJack is implying (and I don't necessarily disagree with him) that the science behind the "myth of power" is that it is just that: a myth. Flexy vs. stiff, doesn't matter. A high SW flexy stick vs. a low SW stiff stick should produce virtually the same amount of power.

Again I don't disagree, I just want to know why it is that I experience two different things when I feel like I shouldn't.
And yes, it could be my inexperience. I'm not an awesome player, I have many faults with my strokes. But I am trying to improve my game.

I hit more winners, more aces and more shots stay in-bounds with a stiff APD, compared to a low powered, high SW, flexy "player's stick". All in all, I just "feel like" I'm hitting a faster ball with it.

But here's the thing: I don't *want* that to be the case. I don't want to use the APD, i want to use players sticks because they are better for my wrist. They produce no pain, and are softer on my arm. I just seem to lose more with them. So i use the APD so I can actually "win" matches.

I use the same string with all my racquets, I do my own string jobs, I use the same over grips and dampeners, so I try to keep all my different branded-sticks as similar as possible.

I just want to know what I need to do, as a player, so that I can keep using a Radical and win just as often as by using an APD. It could very well mean more coaching, i admit that. But if it turns out that due to the way that I play my game, if a lightweight stiff frame is the only thing that's going to ensure that I win matches, then I ought to take out an insurance policy on my arm!

Maybe you can't handle the higher SW of the flexier stick.
Like me. I went from 12.4 oz and 12.7 oz DunlopMfil and Aero 200's to their 500's, lost 2+ oz, went 8 points stiffer, and play much better. Hit a little worse.
Hitting is completely different than playing.
Lighter is more precise.

ChicagoJack is implying (and I don't necessarily disagree with him) that the science behind the "myth of power" is that it is just that: a myth. Flexy vs. stiff, doesn't matter. A high SW flexy stick vs. a low SW stiff stick should produce virtually the same amount of power.

Again I don't disagree, I just want to know why it is that I experience two different things when I feel like I shouldn't.
And yes, it could be my inexperience. I'm not an awesome player, I have many faults with my strokes. But I am trying to improve my game.

I hit more winners, more aces and more shots stay in-bounds with a stiff APD, compared to a low powered, high SW, flexy "player's stick". All in all, I just "feel like" I'm hitting a faster ball with it.

But here's the thing: I don't *want* that to be the case. I don't want to use the APD, i want to use players sticks because they are better for my wrist. They produce no pain, and are softer on my arm. I just seem to lose more with them. So i use the APD so I can actually "win" matches.

I use the same string with all my racquets, I do my own string jobs, I use the same over grips and dampeners, so I try to keep all my different branded-sticks as similar as possible.

I just want to know what I need to do, as a player, so that I can keep using a Radical and win just as often as by using an APD. It could very well mean more coaching, i admit that. But if it turns out that due to the way that I play my game, if a lightweight stiff frame is the only thing that's going to ensure that I win matches, then I ought to take out an insurance policy on my arm!

Thanks.

Click to expand...

The comparison should be made by finding a racquet with the same exact specs as an APD including string pattern, but just more flexible....not sure if it's out there, you might have to lead up a lighweight players stick to get there.